In your opinion, does this woman have grounds for a lawsuit?

A New Jersey woman who says she was denied a license plate referencing atheism filed suit this week, claiming her online application was rejected because it was deemed potentially offensive.

Shannon Morgan, of Maurice Township, said in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that the Motor Vehicle Commission violated her First Amendment rights when its website rejected the plate reading "8^THEIST." She said she received a message stating that her vanity plate request was ineligible as it "may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency."

Morgan then filled out the online application using the phrase "BAPTIST" as a test, which the website accepted. Morgan claims in her lawsuit that she sent the agency a letter of complaint by registered mail and made several attempts to contact them by phone, all of which went unanswered.

Story

Yes...if she feels she needs to take it that far.

If she's suing for the principal of the matter...then yes.

For money...no.

No, she has no grounds. The state is not obligated to give you a plate with any sort of religious message on it. You cannot get one that says Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran or Hindu.
The principal has already been set, the atheists have one, you want complete separation of church and state to the point that the state does not even recognize religion? there you go

Actually, according to the OP, she could apply for a vanity plate reading "Baptist" but not one that reads "8^theist".

I think she has a point in principle (and possibly an agenda beyond simply getting a certain vanity plate) and she has grounds for a lawsuit, based on what's been presented.

Meh, I liked it better when people just slapped on a bumper sticker if they felt the need to invoke their freedom of speech/religion on the back of their rides.

(04-19-2014, 09:51 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: You cannot get one that says Baptist

Yes, she can and that's what she is having a problem with. The DMV will allow BAPTIST but not 8^THEIST.

Meh- Let her have what ever she wants on the lic plate.

All it will do is make her car a target. Kind of like getting a Camaro in Pull me over red, or heading up a church that claims God hates Fags.

I know there are starving children in Africa who would be perfectly happy to get a Baptist license plate. Perhaps the attention whore should be grateful for what she has.

OK, I missed that apparently. In that case then she does have a point,its offensive and classless attention whoring but she does have a point. I don't think she should get paid for it though, she has not been harmed in any way whatsoever.

(04-19-2014, 11:15 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Morgan then filled out the online application using the phrase "BAPTIST" as a test, which the website accepted.

"Baptist" is a surname . . .

Check your white pages.

Not being able to out atheist on your license plate is a stupid reason to sue.

(04-20-2014, 12:33 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Not being able to out atheist on your license plate is a stupid reason to sue.

Thank you for another enlightening post, Ramsey.

I bet Ramsey would be fine on a plate but not Ram-me. And steak would be almost as good on a plate.

(04-20-2014, 12:40 PM)sally Wrote:

(04-20-2014, 12:33 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Not being able to out atheist on your license plate is a stupid reason to sue.

Thank you for another enlightening post, Ramsey.

My pleasure, Sally.

(04-20-2014, 12:33 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Not being able to out atheist on your license plate is a stupid reason to sue.

I agree that suing over vanity plates in and of themselves would be stupid, but that's not what this is really about. It's about the principle of the matter.

Morgan is claiming discrimination in regards to freedom of religious speech/expression -- and from what's been released thus far, I think her point is valid. There really aren't many better reasons to file suit against authorities than deprivation of constitutional rights, IMO.

She is represented by Ayesha N. Khan, the legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State — a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

Reverand Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group: “This license plate issue may seem like a small matter but it is indicative of a much larger problem — atheists are often treated by the government as second-class citizens".

“She believes that the commission’s decision to deny her a plate that reads '8^THEIST' but to allow her one that reads 'BAPTIST' expresses a preference for theistic religious belief over non-theistic belief”, the lawsuit states. Source: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2...plate.html

Anyway, I didn't see anything in the media reports to indicate that Morgan is suing for money. She wants to be able to get the vanity plate that she requested and to be reimbursed for her attorneys' fees (and quite possibly IMO, though not stated, the public exposure associated with this suit).

(04-20-2014, 10:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(04-20-2014, 12:33 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Not being able to out atheist on your license plate is a stupid reason to sue.

I agree that suing over vanity plates in and of themselves would be stupid, but that's not what this is really about. It's about the principle of the matter.

Morgan is claiming discrimination in regards to freedom of religious speech/expression -- and from what's been released thus far, I think her point is valid. There really aren't many better reasons to file suit against authorities than deprivation of constitutional rights, IMO.

She is represented by Ayesha N. Khan, the legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State — a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

Reverand Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group: “This license plate issue may seem like a small matter but it is indicative of a much larger problem — atheists are often treated by the government as second-class citizens".

“She believes that the commission’s decision to deny her a plate that reads '8^THEIST' but to allow her one that reads 'BAPTIST' expresses a preference for theistic religious belief over non-theistic belief”, the lawsuit states. Source: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2...plate.html

Anyway, I didn't see anything in the media reports to indicate that Morgan is suing for money. She wants to be able to get the vanity plate that she requested and to be reimbursed for her attorneys' fees (and quite possibly IMO, though not stated, the public exposure associated with this suit).

Her complaint is completely valid. That is religious discrimination.

(04-21-2014, 02:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(04-20-2014, 10:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It's about the principle of the matter.

Morgan is claiming discrimination in regards to freedom of religious speech/expression -- and from what's been released thus far, I think her point is valid. There really aren't many better reasons to file suit against authorities than deprivation of constitutional rights, IMO.

“She believes that the commission’s decision to deny her a plate that reads '8^THEIST' but to allow her one that reads 'BAPTIST' expresses a preference for theistic religious belief over non-theistic belief”, the lawsuit states. Source: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2...plate.html

Her complaint is completely valid. That is religious discrimination.

Why?

No other documentation supporting a religious discrimination basis (or in her case, a non-religious discrimination basis) has been offered by her attorney.

She chose a surname to punctuate her claim. Not "Jew", "Muslim", "Mormon" . . . "Aryan" . . . "S8tnist" . . .

Why didn't her attorney present other license apps, addressing religious acceptance or religious "persecution"?

Probably because they don't exist.

I'm curious as to her driving record, too.

Fucking godless bitch!

(04-21-2014, 03:37 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-21-2014, 02:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(04-20-2014, 10:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It's about the principle of the matter.

Morgan is claiming discrimination in regards to freedom of religious speech/expression -- and from what's been released thus far, I think her point is valid. There really aren't many better reasons to file suit against authorities than deprivation of constitutional rights, IMO.

“She believes that the commission’s decision to deny her a plate that reads '8^THEIST' but to allow her one that reads 'BAPTIST' expresses a preference for theistic religious belief over non-theistic belief”, the lawsuit states. Source: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2...plate.html

Her complaint is completely valid. That is religious discrimination.

Why?

No other documentation supporting a religious discrimination basis (or in her case, a non-religious discrimination basis) has been offered by her attorney.

She chose a surname to punctuate her claim. Not "Jew", "Muslim", "Mormon" . . . "Aryan" . . . "S8tnist" . . .

Why didn't her attorney present other license apps, addressing religious acceptance or religious "persecution"?

Probably because they don't exist.

I'm curious as to her driving record, too.

Fucking godless bitch!

For the simple fact that Baptist was approved and 8^theist wasn't.

(04-21-2014, 03:37 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Why?

No other documentation supporting a religious discrimination basis (or in her case, a non-religious discrimination basis) has been offered by her attorney.

She chose a surname to punctuate her claim. Not "Jew", "Muslim", "Mormon" . . . "Aryan" . . . "S8tnist" . . .

Why didn't her attorney present other license apps, addressing religious acceptance or religious "persecution"?

Probably because they don't exist.

I'm curious as to her driving record, too.

Fucking godless bitch!

The reason given by the Motor Vehicle Commission for denying Morgan's "8^THEIST" plate request was that it's "offensive" -- not that Morgan had a record including DUI, or reckless driving, or causing a death (all of which prohibit procurement of a vanity plate for 10 years).

That's why I think she has a valid complaint. Take "BAPTIST" outta the equation if you wanna contend that it being a surname renders it non-religious and therefore not an apples-to-apples comparison. You can get a plate that reads "IAMGOD" and "BIOTCH" in New Jersey and that's not considered offensive, but "8^THEIST" is considered offensive?

I haven't seen the legal document attached to the suit, but would be surprised if her attorney didn't reference the case of the man who was denied an "ATHEIST" plate in New Jersey late last year. In August, the president of an Atheist group, David Silverman, complained after he was told his request for an "ATHEIST" plate was denied because it was "offensive".

It hit the media and the Motor Vehicle Commission spokeswoman, Elyse Coffey, declared that the DMV clerk had exceeded her authority.

Custom plates with language deemed offensive are prohibited. Coffey says it was determined there was "nothing offensive" about it and Silverman was quickly issued the "ATHEIST" plate (with a "1" replacing the "i" because completely alpha ATHEIST was already taken).

If the Motor Vehicle Commission agreed that atheism isn't offensive late last year in Silverman's case, why is it again offensive this year in Morgan's?

(04-21-2014, 04:27 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(04-21-2014, 03:37 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Why?

No other documentation supporting a religious discrimination basis (or in her case, a non-religious discrimination basis) has been offered by her attorney.

She chose a surname to punctuate her claim. Not "Jew", "Muslim", "Mormon" . . . "Aryan" . . . "S8tnist" . . .

Why didn't her attorney present other license apps, addressing religious acceptance or religious "persecution"?

Probably because they don't exist.

I'm curious as to her driving record, too.

Fucking godless bitch!

The reason given by the Motor Vehicle Commission for denying Morgan's "8^THEIST" plate request was that it's "offensive" -- not that Morgan had a record including DUI, or reckless driving, or causing a death (all of which prohibit procurement of a vanity plate for 10 years).

That's why I think she has a valid complaint. Take "BAPTIST" outta the equation if you wanna contend that it being a surname renders it non-religious and therefore not an apples-to-apples comparison. You can get a plate that reads "IAMGOD" and "BIOTCH" in New Jersey and that's not considered offensive, but "8^THEIST" is considered offensive?

I haven't seen the legal document attached to the suit, but would be surprised if her attorney didn't reference the case of the man who was denied an "ATHEIST" plate in New Jersey late last year. In August, the president of an Atheist group, David Silverman, complained after he was told his request for an "ATHEIST" plate was denied because it was "offensive".

It hit the media and the Motor Vehicle Commission spokeswoman, Elyse Coffey, declared that the DMV clerk had exceeded her authority.
Custom plates with language deemed offensive are prohibited. Coffey says it was determined there was "nothing offensive" about it and Silverman was quickly issued the "ATHEIST" plate (with a "1" replacing the "i" because completely alpha ATHEIST was already taken).

If the Motor Vehicle Commission agreed that atheism isn't offensive late last year in Silverman's case, why is it again offensive this year in Morgan's?

Because, godless bitch or not, she has the right to express herself any way she wants as long as she pays the extra money for that vanity plate. It's discrimination, clearly.

(04-21-2014, 05:36 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(04-21-2014, 04:27 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The reason given by the Motor Vehicle Commission for denying Morgan's "8^THEIST" plate request was that it's "offensive" . . . That's why I think she has a valid complaint.

You can get a plate that reads "IAMGOD" and "BIOTCH" in New Jersey and that's not considered offensive, but "8^THEIST" is considered offensive?

If the Motor Vehicle Commission agreed that atheism isn't offensive late last year in Silverman's case, why is it again offensive this year in Morgan's?

Because, godless bitch or not, she has the right to express herself any way she wants as long as she pays the extra money for that vanity plate. It's discrimination, clearly.

A vanity plate is NOT a right. I don't deny and I applaud her "right to express herself any way she wants" . . . however, the State is not obligated to assist her. She can put a fucking sticker on her car proclaiming her infidel status.

"Youze pays yo' monies and youze takes yo' chances."

She knew at the outset, that "someone" had the power to deem the wording on a vanity plate "offensive." And that someone deemed her submission "offensive". What objective criteria was applied to reach this conclusion (or if such criteria exists), has not been offered by either side.

I have seen nothing to support her claim that it was a religious/non-religious rejection . . . that is her inference.

I have seen nothing to prohibit individual subjective criteria as a basis for denial.

Until such time that the specific criteria or motive for rejection is made public, it remains mere speculation.

However, it will be tough to argue that it is a bigoted and targeted denial, as both "ATHEIST" and "ATHE1^ST" has been granted by New Jersey.

Perhaps the "8" was interpreted by the evil discriminating staff worker as a phoneme for "HATE" . . . rendering the message "I hate those who believe in deities."

Maybe it was an atheist staff member who interpreted the "8" as "Infinity" and found the thought of "Infinite Deities" offensive.

I used "Baptist" as it was her proof of discrimination. I offered other religion specific choices that I believed would better demonstrate a religious preference or bias.

And then there's the whole cannibal thing . . . "Eaten".

"GODLESS" is still available in New Jersey (I checked) as a vanity plate . . . one she might consider to "express" her belief.

As to "IAMGOD" and "BIOTCH" . . .

Who isn't a "God" and why would you consider "Bio Tech" as offensive?

As an aside . . . I wonder if she paid with cash?